Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Federal Budget Federal Budget The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:37): Government ministers, in particular the Hon. Mr Hunter and others, continue to make statements in this chamber and elsewhere that are inaccurate and misleading. For example, on 3 June the minister continued to indicate that the state Liberal opposition in this chamber has said nothing in relation to opposition to federal cuts to health and education. He said: You don't hear the Hon. Mr Lucas standing up…The Hon. Mr Lucas doesn't, not a peep, nothing out of this side on the opposition benches about this vicious attack on health and education. Further on he said: As I said, Dr Duncan McFetridge, in the other place, has had the courage to stand up to these federal attacks, but not the Hon. Mr Lucas. I have not seen him on the public record criticising the federal Liberal government for ripping cash out of health and education…But no, the Hon. Mr Lucas is forming part of the cheer squad for those cuts. As I have indicated before, the state Liberal Party position, as enunciated by Steven Marshall and myself, has, for a long period of time, been to oppose the federal budget cuts to both health and education, as well as the $18 million cuts to local government road funding and other areas as well. I refer the minister to statements on the public record, made in this place on 21 May, I think, in the Address in Reply debate, where I put the position of Mr Marshall and the state Liberal Party on those issues. Mr Marshall has also made a number of public statements, including on 22 May and any number of other days, last night in the Supply Bill debate and, again, today, in various radio interviews. So, the Liberal Party's position is quite clear and it is misleading and untrue for any member, such as the Hon. Mr Hunter, to continue to make the statements that he does in this particular chamber. I also note that in my Address in Reply speech, expressing an individual view as opposed to a state party view, I expressed some personal concerns and reservations about the changes to unemployment benefit arrangements for under 30s and I went on to explain in some detail some of the issues and concerns that there might be in that particular area as well. So, Mr President, we will call out the Hon. Mr Hunter and, indeed, anyone else who seeks to misrepresent the state Liberal Party's position—it remains quite clear. The second issue I want to address quickly is an issue I raised in my Address in Reply speech, and that related to the comments the Hon. Mr Gazzola had made about the Hon. Mr Maher. I note now, some two or three weeks later, that there has still been no response from the Hon. Mr Maher on the public record or, indeed, anywhere else in relation to the very significant criticisms the Hon. Mr Gazzola made of the Hon. Mr Maher's behaviour and actions. He indicated that the Hon. Mr Maher was a member of the left faction and would have to be quite creative in how and with whose support he becomes a minister. As I indicated in that speech, it is quite clear there that the Hon. Mr Gazzola has fired a shot across the bow of the Hon. Mr Maher, saying, 'You might have had my support and our support in the past, but if you want to move to the next step, from parliamentary secretary to minister, don't count on it, you're going to have to be pretty creative.' But the most damning criticism, to which he has not responded, is that, in essence, he said the Hon. Mr Maher was not old Labor, he was new Labor. Old Labor was characterised by loyalty and collectivism, but the Hon. Mr Maher, being a member of new Labor, was not someone who valued loyalty and collectivism: a no more damning indictment or criticism can there be of a leftie member of the Labor caucus in this chamber. One would hope that at some stage the Hon. Mr Maher will put his position in terms of at least some attempt at defence of that criticism. I also put on the public record the fact that, in a most un-Australian act similar to the member for West Torrens—you would be familiar with someone who has a bet and does not pay up. You will recall the details I put on the record of the member for West Torrens having a bet of $50 in 2001 and, in a most un-Australian way, refusing to pay up on that gambling debt. The Hon. Mr Maher has done the same thing. He has had a bet with a Labor colleague, a member of his caucus, for $1,000 that he would not win back his position as No. 4 on the Legislative Council ticket, and when he did get re-elected has now refused to pay. Let us hope he is not also going to be a welsher from the West like the member for West Torrens. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Hood.